G en. 343] 343
S TA TE ’ S AT TORN EY S

S OVERE I GN I M M UN IT Y

) T ORT C LAI MS

) S TATE ’ S A T T ORN E YS A RE N OT S UBJE CT T O THE M ARYL AN D T ORT C LAI MS A CT

O ct ober13, 1993

K i rk G

. Sim

pkins, Esquir e C o u n ty A tto rn e

y fo r S o m e rs e t C o u n ty
Y o u h a v e re q u e ste d o u r op in io n w h e th e r a S tate ’s A tto rn e yis
s ubj ectt o t he M ar y l and TortC l ai m s A ct

. For t he r eas ons s tat ed b elow , w e c o n clud e tha t a S tat e’s A tt o rne y is n o t su b ject to th e T o rt C la im s A c t.

I Backg r ound

Y o u r qu esti o n arises b ec au se o ff ici als fo r S o m erse t C o u n tyare c o n sid e rin g w h e th e r to in c lu d e th e S tate ’s A tto rn e y in th e ir liab ili ty i ns ur ance undert he Lo c a l Gov e rn me n tI ns ur ance T rus t , an i ns ur ance p o o l

. Co u n s e l t o t h e T ru s t h a s a d v i s e d t h a t u n d e rt h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w, A rticle 4 8 A , § 4 8 2 B o f

th e M a ry lan d C o d e , a n d th e tru st a g re e m e n t, a county ’ s par t i ci pat ion i n t he pool does notaut om at i cal l yi ncl ude th e S ta te ’s A tto rn e y ’s O f f ic e in its lia b ility c o v e ra g e . H o w e v e r, a par t i ci pat i ng count y m ay name a n el i gi bl e publ i c ent i t y , s uch as t he S tate ’s A tto rn e y , in its p rim a ry c o v e ra g e so lo n g a s th e n a m e d e n tity i s s ubj ect t o t he L ocal G over nm entT or tC l ai m s A ctort he M ar y l and T o rt C la im s A c t.
A lth o u g h co u n sel h as e v iden tl y c o n c lud ed that the S tat e’s A tto rn e yis n o t su b

jec t to th e L o c a l G o v e rn m e n t T o rt C laim s A c t, r ece ntamendm ent s t o t he M ar y l an d T o r tC l ai m s A cthave c r eat ed
u n c e r ta in tyw h e th e r th e S tate ’s A tto rn e yis s u b jec t to th a t A c t. A ccor di ngl y , i thas been s ugges ted t hatt he A t t or neyG ener al be
a s k e d f o r a n o p in io n o n th is is s u e
. See Le t t e r o f J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1992344 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y

Provisions of §40 pertaining to par ticular c ounties wereamende d 1 by Chapters 116, 182, a

nd 248 of the L aws of Maryland 1993. Chapters 116 and 182 both took eff ect July 1, 1993, and Chapter 248 t ak es ef fec t October 1, 1993. The oblig ation of loca l governments to fund the State’s Attorney ’s Off

ice wa s the subject of a

n opinion issu ed in 1989. See 74 Opinions of the Attorney Gene ral 263 (1989).
As theCourt

po int e d o ut, the L oc a l Gov e rnme nt To rt Claims Ac t, 2 §§ 5- 40 1 thro ugh 5 -4 04 of theCourt s and

Judic ia l Proc e edi ngs Artic le (“CJ” Article), spe cifi ca lly includes only

cer tain ag encie s that are ordinarily reg arde d as State ag encie s; the impli cation, therefore, wa s that other State entiti es and officials, such as sheriffs a nd their deputies, were excluded. Ruck

er , 316 Md. at 293-94. f r o m D a v i d M

. F u n k o f S h a p i r o a n d O l a n d e r t o L a r r y C

. B r a d l e y, R is k M a n a g e r o f

th e L o c a l G o v e rn m e n t I n s u ra n c e T ru s t.

II

T ort C l ai m s A ct C onverage
T he off ic e of St at e’ s A t t or neyi n eac h of t he count i es and B al t i m or e C i t yi s es t abl i s hed byA rt icl e V , §7 of t he M ar y l and C o n s titu tio n
. See Mur

phy v. Y at es , 276 M d. 475, 488, 348 A

. 2d 837 ( 1975)

. St at e l aw r equi r es t he re s pect i ve l ocal gover nm ent s t o fund t hi s offi ce. A r t i cl e 10, §40. N onet hel es s , t he S t at e’ s A t t or neyhas 1 g e n e ra lly b e e n re g a rd e d a s a S ta te , ra th e r t h a n lo c a l, o f f ic ia l. See V al l e v. P r es s m an , 2 2 9 M d

. 5 9 1 , 1 8 5 A

. 2 d 3 6 8 (19 6 2 ).

I n R u c k e r v . H

a rfo rdC o u n ty , 316 M d. 275, 558 A

. 2d 399 ( 1989) , t he C our tof A ppeal s cons i der ed t he ques t i on y ou have pos ed
w ith re sp e c t to th e sh e rif f , w h o se p o sitio n a s a S tate o f f icia l w a s s a id t o be ana l ogous t o t hat of t he St at e’ s A t t or ney
. 316 M d. at285- 86. T he C our thel d t hat t he sher i ffs and t hei rdeput i es w er e cove r ed by th e M a ry lan d T o rt C laim s A c t, T itl e 1 2 , S u b ti tle 1 o f th e S tate G over nm entA r t i cl e ( “SG ” A r t i cl e)

. T he C our tbas ed i t s deci s i on 2
o n a p ro v isio n in S G § 1 2 -1 0 1 , w h ic h a t th e tim e d e f in e d “ S tate per s onnel ” for purpos es of t he M ar y l and T or t C l ai m s A ct t o i ncl ude “a n ind ividu al w h o , w ith o r w ith o u t com p en sati o n , ex erc ises a p art o f th e so v ere ign tyo f t h e S tat e.” 3 1 6 M d

. at 29 7 -98

. In th e C o u rt ’s view , t his provis i on cl earl y cov ered a sheri ff and s heri ff’s deputi es, and t he fact t hat a sher i ff’ s offi ce i s funded byl ocal gover nm entw asG en. 343] 345
no bas i s forexcl udi ng s uch per s onnel

. 316 M d. at 298- 300. T he C o u rtal s o s ugges t ed t hatt he St at e’ s A t t or ney s and var i ous ot her offi ci al s w oul d l i kew i s e be cover ed under t he s ame pr ovi s i on. 316 M d. at300.

I n i t s opi ni on, w hi ch w as i s s ued June 9, 1989, t he C our tnot ed t hatt he G ener al A s s embl yhad ena ct ed l egi s l at ion att he 1989 Ses s i on t o r evi s e SG §12- 10 1

. B eca us e t he amendm entw as not eff ect i ve unt i l J ul y1, 1989, how ever , and bec aus e no ar gum entw as b a se d o n th e re v ise d p ro v isio n , the C o u rt d id n o t co n sid e r it. R ucke r , 3 1 6 M d . a t 2 9 8 n . 1 1

. T h e l a w t o wh i c h t h e Co u r t r e f e r r e d , Ch a p t e r 4 1 3 o f t h e L a ws o f M a ry lan d 1 9 8 9 , am e n d e d S G § 1 2 -1 0 1 to d e c lar e th a t S tate offi ci al s “pai d i n w hol e or i n par tbyt he C ent r al Payr ol l B ur eau” of the C o m p tr o ll er’s O ff

ice a re “ S tat e p erso n n e l.” S G § 1 2 -10 1 (1). T he 1989 ena ct m ental s o del et ed t he ph ras e “w i t h or ” fr om t he por t i on of t he def

i ni t i on of “St at e per s onnel ” t hathad i ncl uded “a n i ndi vi dual w ho, w i t h orw i t houtcompensa t i on, exer ci s es a par tof th e so v e re ig n ty o f th e S tate .” S G § 1 2 -1 0 1 (4 ). A f ter th e a m e n d m e n t, a n in d iv id u a l w h o e x e rc ise d a p o rtio n o f th e so v e re ig n tyo f

th e S tate and w ho w as pai d t o do s o w as encompas s ed byt he TortC l ai m s A ct
o n ly if th e p a y m e n t c a m e f

ro m th e S ta te ’s C e n tr a l P a yro ll B u re a u
. B eca us e t hi s defi ni t i on w as t he bas i s of t he C our t ’ s concl us i on t hat s heri ffs and t heirdep uti es
)a s w e ll a s o th e r lo c a llyp a id S tate off i ci al s, l i ke S t at e’s A t t orney s
)w ere su b ject t o the M ary land T o rt C l ai m s A ct , t he r es ul t of t he del et i on w as t o excl ude fr om the M ar y l and TortC l ai m s A cts uch l ocal l ycompensa t ed o ff ici al s as s her i ffs and St at e’s A t t or ney s and t hus t o over rul e t hi s as pectof R ucke r
. A lth o u g h thes e of ficials su rely ex erc ise a pa rto f th e S tat e’s
so v ere ign ty , they d o n o t do so “ w ith o u t com p en sati o n
. ” F u rt h er, they are n o t paid b ythe C en tr al P a y ro ll B u rea u
. H en ce , they w ere n o t “ St a t e p e r s o n n e l ” a s t h e d e f i n i t i o n r e a d a f

t e r t h e e n a c t m ent of C hapt er413.

I n i t s ne xtr e gu l a rs e s s i on , t he G e ne r a l A s s e mbl ya mend e d SG §12- 101 once a gai n t o expr es s l y i ncl ude “a s her i ff ordeput ys her i ff” i n t h e d ef

ini t i on of “St at e per s onnel

. ” C hapt er508, L aw s of346 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y

Although the1990 enactment made she riffs a nd their deputies 3 subject to the Maryland Tort Claims Act, it also made therespe ctive local g ov e rnme nts re sp on sib lefo r payin gjudgme nts , s ub je c t to c e rt a in e xcepti on s. Although the State’s Att orneys do not enjoy the immunity

aff orded 4 by SG § 1 2

- 1 0 5 an d CJ § 5

- 3 9 9

. 2 (b ) , th e y ma y b e a b le to inv oke other immunity defe nses. Se ege ne ra lly

77 Opinions of the Attorney General 198 (1992). M ar y l and 1990. See SG §12- 101( 6)

. H ow ever , t he G ene ral 3 A s s e m b l y c o n s i d e r e d a n d r e j e c t e d t h e i n c l u s i o n o f

S t a t e ’ s A t t o r n e ys and t hei rdeput i es
. R epor tof S en at e C om m i t t ee on J udi ci al Pr ocee di ngs on S. B

. 813 and Senat e J our nal for t he 1 9 9 0 S ess i on 1 8 5 5 -5 8

. T h e c lea r im p lica tio n o f th e e x c lu sio n in 1 9 8 9 o f lo c a lly compensa t ed i ndi vi dual s exer ci s i ng t he S t at e’ s s over ei gnt y , and t he
e x p r e s s i n c l u s i o n i n 1 9 9 0 o f s h e r i f f s a n d t h e i r d e p u t i e s , i s t hat St at e’ s A t t or ney s and t hei rdeput i es ar e nots ubj ectt o t he M ar y l and T o rt C la im s A c t. See gener al l y A l l i ed V

endi ng, I

nc. v. C it

y of B o w ie , N o. 108, Sept ember T er m , 1992, s l i p op. at26- 27 ( Sep. 17, 1 9 9 3 ). 4

III
C oncl usi on
I n s um m ar y , i ti s ouropi ni on t hata S tat e’s A t t or neyi s not s u b je c t to th e M a ryla n d T o rt C la im s A c t.
J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al

R i char d E

. I s r ael A s s is t an t At to r n ey G ener al
Ja c k S c h w a rtz C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons & Advi ce